> Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you talking about the
> original grammar or your modified one? Your modified one is erroneous
> because it will always associate successive UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT
> operators left-to-right; this does not meet the SQL spec which insists
> that INTERSECT binds more tightly than the other two. Given that, I'm
> not surprised that the precedences have no effect.
> > I don't see precedence in SQL92; set operations
> > seem to be left associative of equal priority.
> Better take another look at the <query expression>, <query term>,
> <query primary> hierarchy then...
Is there something here to patch? Hmm, I don't see anything... I will
come back later. :-)
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-10-28 20:57:26|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for DROP TABLE rollback mechanism |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2000-10-28 20:52:31|
|Subject: Numeric file names|